For weeks, the tone had been raised. Thinly veiled threats, martial declarations, assumed balance of power posture… Donald Trump had made Greenland a new object of diplomatic standoff. And then, suddenly, a change of tempo: the threats stop, and a “softer” path is announced, without the President of the USA recognizing the slightest wrong.
A vague answer without questioning
On Wednesday January 21, from the World Economic Forum in Davos, the American president announced “the framework of a future agreement” concerning Greenland and, more broadly, the Arctic region. The contours of this agreement remain unclear, but one point is clear: customs and military threats are put aside.
Questioned by journalists, Donald Trump asserts that it is “not a question of money”, while refusing to say whether this compromise involves – or not – an American takeover of the autonomous Danish territory. “It’s a long-term agreement, the long-term agreement par excellence“, he evades, while ensuring that the United States gets it”everything they wanted“. In short, vagueness, bluster, without recognizing the slightest misstep. So, strategic retreat or simple change of narrative? It doesn’t matter, in the end. Because beyond the Trump case, this political sequence illustrates a much more universal question: how to emerge from a conflict without losing face?
Reversing your positions: a more difficult exercise than it seems
For Amélie Boukhobza, psychologist, this maneuver by Donald Trump touches on a profoundly human mechanism. The one that takes place when we realize, sometimes too late, that we have gone too far. “One sentence too many. Too radical a position. A decision made out of emotion, pride or the need to be right can happen to all of us.”.
But according to the psychologist, the error is not the heart of the problem. It is part of all human interaction. “What is decisive, however, is the ability to
review what was said or done. And that’s precisely where things get complicated.” (And what seems to be missing from the person concerned).
Why is backing down so scary?
Going back is often experienced as a threat to one’s self-image. “Many unconsciously associate the fact of admitting a wrong with humiliation, even with a collapse of identity: if I admit that I was wrong, then everything that I am is called into question.. A false equation, but deeply rooted.
“We still too often confuse recognition and weakness”, recognizes Amélie Boukhobza. “Result: instead of adjusting, we harden ourselves. We deny the obvious, we attack so as not to back down, we outbid ourselves to save the ego.” A defensive strategy that gives the illusion of strength, but which, in the long term, damages everything: relationships, credibility, and sometimes even self-esteem.
Accept to lose a little so as not to lose everything
The psychologist emphasizes a key point: getting out of a conflict almost always involves a form of renunciation. “Not a total surrender, but a partial letting go.”. Accept losing a little ground to avoid sacrificing everything.
However, many remain stuck in a binary logic: win or lose, dominate or crash. “This vision prevents any healthy exit from the conflict. It encloses, stiffens, isolates.”.
Conversely, agreeing to nuance, correct or shift one’s position often allows us to preserve the essential: the relationship, personal coherence, the possibility of moving forward. And the face, most of the time.
Moving the fight: from ego to action
Coming out of a conflict, explains Amélie Boukhobza, does not mean denying yourself. This means changing terrain. Skip the question
“Who’s right?” has “what do I do now? “.
We can recognize an excess without flagellating ourselves, correct an act without getting lost in endless justifications.
“The key lies in the way of formulating: speaking from the act, and not from the ego. Naming what was done, then saying what is adjusted today. Without dramatization, without staging guilt.”
The real way to save face
Paradoxically, what really saves face is not rigidity, but consistency. The ability to align words and actions over time.
Being able to simply say: “This is what I did. This is what I’m doing differently today“.
“This posture does not seek to crush the other in order to raise oneself. It does not erase the past, but it transforms it into a point of support.” And it is often there, the psychologist concludes, that a form of discreet greatness resides: that of someone who moves forward without being locked into their pride. Some people should take note.